Concord Principles

Way back in 1992 when there was a three way race for the presidency between Republican incumbent George Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and independent businessman Ross Perot there was another voice calling out from the sidelines to be heard. His name was Ralph Nader and he declared himself a write-in candidate during the race. The platform that he ran on and would later refine during the 1996 and 2000 elections was based on his thoughts about what was wrong with politics in America. He called it “The Concord Principles” and in it he attempted to define what he saw as the problems and to offer up some solutions about how they could be rectified. Here’s the full text of the document. I’ll let you folks decide on whether if some, none or all of his points are still relevant and if anything has changed.

The Concord Principles

An Agenda for a New Initiatory Democracy

Whereas, a selfish oligarchy has produced economic decline, the debasement of politics, and the exclusion of citizens from the strengthening of their democracy and political economy;

Whereas, this rule of the self-serving few over the Nations business and politics has concentrated power, money, greed, and corruption far beyond the control accountability of citizens;

Whereas, Presidential campaigns have become narrow, shallow, redundant, and frantic parades and horse races which candidates, their monetary backers, and their handlers control unilaterally, with the citizenry expected to be the bystanders and compliant voters;

Whereas,> a pervading sense of powerlessness, denial, and revulsion is sweeping the Nations citizens as they endure or suffer from growing inequities, injustice, and loss of control over their future and the future of their children; and

Whereas, we, the citizens of the United States, who are dedicated to the reassertion of fundamental democratic principles and their application to the practical, daily events in our Nation, are committed to begin the work of shaping the substance of Presidential campaigns and of engaging the candidates attention to our citizen agendas during this 1992 election year;

Now, therefore, we hereby present the ensuing Concord Principles to the Presidential candidates for the 1992 election and invite their written, consistent, and continual adherence to these principles during their entire campaign and in whatever public offices and responsibilities they hold or may hold upon cessation of their campaigns:

First, democracy is more than a bundle of rights on paper; democracy must also embrace usable facilities that empower all citizens

(b) to communicate such information and their judgments to one another through modern technology; and

(c) to band together in civic associations as voters, taxpayers, consumers, workers, shareholders, students, and as whole human beings in pursuit of a prosperous, just and free society.

Second, the separation of ownership of major societal assets from their control permits the concentration of power over such assets in the hands of the few who control rather than in the hands of the many who own. The owners of the public lands, pension funds, savings accounts, and the public airwaves are the American people, who have essentially little or no control over their pooled assets or their commonwealth.

The American people should assume reasonable control over the assets they have legally owned for many years so that their use reflects citizen priorities for a prosperous America, mindful of the needs and rights of present and future generations of Americans to pursue happiness within benign environments.

Third,, a growing and grave imbalance between the often converging power of Big Business, Big Government and the citizens of this country has seriously damaged our democracy and weakened our ability to correct this imbalance. We lack the mechanisms of civic power. We need a modern tool box for redeeming our democracy by strengthening our capacity for self- government and self-reliance both as individuals and as a community of citizens. Our 18th century democratic rights need retooling for the proper exercise of our responsibilities as citizens in the 21st century.

Fourth, the new democracy tool box contains measures for the purpose of protecting voters from having their voting powers diluted, over-run or nullified. These measures are:

(f) a repeal of the runaway White House/Congressional Pay Raises back to 1988 levels -- a necessary dose of humility to the politicians.

Fifth, the new democracy tool box strengthens taxpayers who wish to have a say in how their tax dollars are being used and how their taxpayer assets are being protected. These objectives will be advanced by according taxpayers full legal standing to challenge in the courts the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax monies and taxpayer assets. Presently, the federal judiciary places nearly insurmountable obstacles in front of taxpayers, thereby leaving the task to the unlikely prospect of government officials taking their own government to court.

Further, a facility for taxpayers banding together can be established by a simple taxpayer check-off on the 1040 tax return, inviting taxpayers to join their national taxpayers association which would be accountable to members on a one member-one vote standard.

Finally, obscure, overly complex, mystifying jargon pervading federal tax, pension, election and other laws and procedures is a barrier to taxpayer-citizen participation. The language of these laws and procedures must be simplified and clarified as a matter of national priority; otherwise, only special interests hiring decoders will be able to participate while the general public is shut out.

Sixth, the new democracy tool box strengthens consumers of both business and government services by according them:

(a) computerized access in libraries and their own homes to the full range of government information for which they have already paid but are now unable to obtain, either inexpensively or at all;

(b) facilities in the form of periodic inserts, included in the billing of other envelopes sent to them by companies that are either legal monopolies (for example, electric, gas, telephone utilities) or are subsidized or subsidizable by the taxpayers (for example, banks and savings and loans). These inserts invite consumers to join their own statewide consumer action group to act as a watchdog, to negotiate and to advocate for their interests.

A model of this facility is the Illinois Citizen Utility Board which has saved ratepayers over $3 billion since 1983, and filled the consumer chair before utility commissions, legislative hearings, and courtroom proceedings on many occasions.

This type of facility costs taxpayers nothing, costs the carrying companies or government mailings nothing (the consumer group pays for the insert and there is no extra postage) and is voluntary for consumers to join. Had there been such bank consumer associations with full-time staff in the 1970s, there would not have been a trillion dollar bailout on the taxpayers back for the S&L and commercial bank crimes, speculations, and mismanagement debacles. These would have been nipped in the bud at the community level by informed, organized consumer judgment. So too would have costly and hazardous energy projects been replaced by energy efficiency and renewable power systems; and

(c) Citizen consumers are the viewers and listeners of television and radio. Federal law says that the public owns the public airwaves which are now leased for free by the Federal Communications Commission to television and radio companies. The public, whose only option is to switch dials or turn off, deserves its own Audience Network.

The Audience Network would enhance the communication and mobilization process between people locally and nationally. The owners of the airwaves deserve a return of their property for one hour prime time and drive time on all licensed stations so that their professional studios, producers, and reporters can program what the audience believes is important to them and their children. The proposal for Audience Network, funded by dues from the audience-members and other non-tax revenues, was the subject of a Congressional hearing in 1991, chaired by Congressman Edward Markey.

Similarly, in return for cable company monopoly and other powers, cable subscribers should be able to join their own cable viewers group through a periodic insert in their monthly cable billing envelopes. Modern electronic communications can play a critical role in anticipating and resolving costly national problems when their owners gain regular usage, as a community intelligence, to inform, alert, and mobilize democratic citizen initiatives. Presently, these electronic broadcasting systems are overwhelmingly used for entertainment, advertising and redundant news, certainly not a fair reflection of what a serious society needs to communicate in a complex age, locally, nationally, and globally.

(d) Access to justice -- to the courts, to government agencies, and to legislatures -- is available to organized, special interests, and they widely use these remedies. In contrast, when consumers are defrauded, injured,rendered sick by wrongdoers or other perpetrators of their harm, they find costly dollar and legal hurdles blocking their right of access. They also find indentured politicians and their lobbying allies bent on closing the doors further.

Systems of justice are to be used conveniently and efficiently by all the people in this country, not just corporations and the wealthy. Otherwise, the citizen shutout worsens.

Seventh, the new democracy tool box for working people contains rights of bringing ones conscience to work without having to risk being unfairly fired or demoted. Ethical whistle blowers have alerted Americans to numerous abuses in the workplace that damage workers health and safety, contaminate the environment, and defraud consumers, taxpayers, and shareholders. However, they often pay the penalty with the loss of their jobs. The exercise of conscience needs simple, effective legal protections which will build inside the corporation, government, or other large bureaucracies the incentives for care, prudence, and accountability that foresee or forestall larger harms.

Eighth, working people, who own over $3 trillion in pension monies, need a reasonable measure of control over where these monies are invested. Presently, a handful of banks and insurance companies control and make these decisions. During the 1980s the use of pension monies for corporate mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts and other empire- building maneuvers showed what does happen when ownership is so separated from control. Control by the few often left economic wreckage behind in many communities, and such capital draining takeovers did not produce employment or new wealth.

Pension monies are gigantic capital pools that can be used productively to meet community needs, but not when their owners are excluded from any organized participation or even the right to know and review what has been decided.

Ninth, the new democracy tool box applies to recognizing shareholder democracy as well. Whether large, small or institutional shareholders (such as pension or other trust funds), the separation of ownership (of the company) from control has been documented impressively, starting with the celebrated study by Berle and Means fifty years ago. The business press is filled with reports of executives of large corporations repeatedly abusing shareholder assets and worker morale with huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, (untied to company performance), self-perpetuating boards of directors, the stifling of the proxy voting system and blocking other shareholder voting reforms such as cumulative voting powers and access to relevant shareholder lists and information. The owners of corporations should be able to prevent their hired executives from engaging in what Business Week called casino capitalism that often ends with mass layoffs, loyal shareholder losses and communities undermined.

Tenth, the new democracy tool box needs to be taught in its historic context and present relevance as part of an engrossing civic curriculum for our country's schoolchildren. Involving all students during their later elementary and secondary school education in practical civics experience so as to develop both their citizen skills and the desire to use them, under the rule of law, can enrich schools, students, and communities alike. Where teachers have made such efforts, the children have responded responsibly and excitedly to the frequent surprise and respect of their elders. Schooling for informed and experienced participation in democratic processes is a major reservoir of future democracy and a profound human resource to be nurtured.

In conclusion, these tools for democracy have fairly common characteristics. They are universally accessible, can reduce government and other deficits, and are voluntary to use or band together around. It matters not whether people are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. It matters only that Americans desire to secure and use these facilities or tools.

Without this reconstruction of our democracy through such facilities for informed civic participation, as noted above, even the most well- intentioned politicians campaigning for your vote cannot deliver, if elected.
Nor can your worries about poverty, discrimination, joblessness, the troubled conditions of education, environment, street and suite crime, budget deficits, costly and inadequate health care, and energy boondoggles, to list a few, be addressed constructively and enduringly. Developing these democratic tools to strengthen citizens in their distinct roles as voters, taxpayers, consumers, workers, shareholders, and students should be very high on the list of any candidates commitments to you.

Unless, that is, they just want your vote, but would rather not have you looking over their shoulder from a position of knowledge, strength and wisdom.

I don't know if it's worth noting but Nader got creamed in 1992 and 1996. Many blame him or, depending on your political affiliations, thank him, for stealing some of Al Gore's votes in 2000 and tilting the election in favor of George W. Bush.

I'm not a big fan of revisionist history and all of so-called pundits who try to gauge the future based on events that never actually occurred. What would've happened today based on what might've happened back then is pure speculation and my guess is probably as good as yours.